No State Election Funds For Uncontested Candidates

When he ran for the first time two years ago, state Rep. Brandon McGee, D-5th District, survived a very tough primary and then defeated a Republican in the general election. He received funds from the state's Citizens Election Program.

When he sought re-election this year, Mr. McGee, a Democrat, had no opponent. Nonetheless, he still received money from the state election program, although not as much. So did dozens of other candidates who had no opponent, or no major-party opponent.

Should the taxpayers be dunned for elections whose results are preordained?

The Courant supports the Citizens Election Program, created in 2005 after the Rowland scandals to reduce the influence of special-interest money in state politics, restore public confidence in the process, provide timely disclosure of campaign finances and increase participation by candidates and voters. But the law envisions a competitive environment. There is little point in leveling the playing field if the game is over.

Under the law, a candidate first has to qualify for the Citizens Election Program by raising a certain amount of small-dollar contributions from a certain number of local donors. A candidate for the House, for example, has to raise $5,000 in $5 to $100 contributions from at least 150 donors. A candidate who meets this test can receive 30 percent of a full grant if there is no opponent and 60 percent if there is a minor party or petitioning opponent.

With no opponent, a House candidate got $8,355 this year and a Senate candidate received $28,704. With a minor party opponent, the numbers jump to $16,710 and $56,814, respectively. Secretary of the State Denise Merrill has said that 50 legislative races — eight in the Senate and 42 in the House — either were uncontested or uncontested by a major party this year. This means hundreds of thousands of dollars helped fund uncontested or uncompetitive campaigns.

Mr. McGee said in an interview this past week that candidates without opponents still have to mount a campaign, and that the grant from the state program helps get the issues to constituents and remind them to vote. He's certainly right. The question is who picks up the tab. He and fellow House candidates with no opponents have to raise the $5,000 to qualify for the Citizens Election Program — isn't that enough to cover an uncontested election?

This isn't the biggest issue facing the program, when there are shameless and cynical efforts to circumvent it with outside money. Nonetheless, at a time when all state spending should be scrutinized, funding uncontested campaigns is a place to tighten the belt.